Additional Notes:
The list I am talking about has been in existence long
before Linux mandrake was popular. Before HPQ bought
Compaq, and b4 Compaq bought DEC. 
DEC Alpha -Tru64 Unix List.

With our list, questions are posted as long as the
problem exists. When problem is solved, everyone is
quiet. So one never knows if the problem was resolved
or not. And if resolved, which of the 10+ responses
solved the issue? That is always a mistery. As a
result, same question will come up again perhaps two
days down the road from a different user! 

Sample entry of the usefulness of posting questions
then SUMMARY only, everything else being offline.

***************** SAMPLE ENTRY ***************
Thanks to all those who replied - all your advice was
helpful!

The problem turned out to be that the dsf database is
not backwards 
compatible between releases or patchkits.
One of the patches in the 5.1B patch kit 2 introduced
an 
incompatibility with the previous version.

I solved the problem by running (still in single user
mode):

  # dn_setup -init 
  # dsfmgr -K

Then I rebooted and the OS installation concluded
successfully.

Dr Blinn also suggested to execute

  >>>set bootdef_dev ""

from the SRM console before reinstalling - this
supposedly also clears 
the problem before a fresh installation.
Unfortunately I have not verified that yet myself, but
it is apparently 
also mentioned in connection with the guilty patch.

Lesson learned - next time I shall be more careful to
read up on the 
patches and not just go ahead installing all of them.
Fortunately this was just a test system...

Kind regards,

  Michael


=== original mail follows ===


Hi managers,

I have a strange problem installing Tru64 5.1B on a
DS-10.

I am in the process of adapting an installation
procedure based on the 
clone installation feature to the version 5.1B, and so
far I had 
performed MANY such installations of 5.1B on this
particular machine as well 
as others.

However, yesterday I downloaded the aggregate patch
kit 0002 for 5.1B 
(which was released on 14 May 2003), and installed it
on that particular 
machine (ALL patches).

Things were apparently fine - the patches installed OK
and the machine 
rebooted OK. 

Then later shut it down to begin a fresh installation
for testing. The 
installation went through the post-OS-install
configuration stage, and 
the subsequent reboot. Then it failed to single user
mode with the 
following messages while trying to mount the
filesystems (I type them 
below, they may not be 100% exact but maybe it is
sufficient for someone to 
identify the cause):
(for information, a is root partition, g is /usr, d is
/usr/users, e is 
private /locrec partition)
**************End of Sample Entry*********** 

Here is an example 






Hi All,

The list I am refering to is for tru64 Unix 
([EMAIL PROTECTED])

IMHO, that list serves much better purpose than this
one. Searching their archives, its almost 100% hit on
subjects that have been discussed before. And, better
yet, one always goes for the SUMMARY/Resolution. Isnt
that what we all want? Or is this a Gossip corner??
For a Gossip corner, we are OK....but for true
learning and solving of problems, we need solutions!

While there might be 10 replies to one posting, only
one might be really relevant, the rest personal
emotions and such. Wouldn't you rather see a summary
that only includes the one entry that correctly
resolved the problem? I would. So instead of reading
25 back-and-forth entries to find one solution, i
would rather have one post --then--its solution.

Again, its just an idea "Different folks, Different
Strokes" 

Richard

--- Brian V Bonini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-06-16 at 21:39, charlie wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 01:23 am, Tru64 User had this
> to contribute :-
> > > Let me know what you guys think.
> > 
> > _Thanks
> > 
> > Richard Mollel
> > 
> > Sort of defeats the purpose of the list. It is the
> think tank element of 
> > everyone throwing something in that makes this
> list a valuable learning 
> > experience IMHO.
> > 
> > I wonder how long the list that uses the rules you
> mention has been running? 
> > It might also be relevant to know what it is
> dealing with I suppose? I 
> > certainly can't identify such an environment as
> allowing maximum discovery.
> > 
> > Not quite 2 cents worth I know.
> > 
> > Charlie.
> 
> I agree and add that this is hardly a busy list that
> borders on being
> too much too handle..... You can always hit delete
> on the topics your
> not interested in.
> 
> 
> > Want to buy your Pack or Services from
MandrakeSoft?
> 
> Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
> 


=====


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Reply via email to